Hey guys I'd like to know if there is a way to tell the difference between a rare 1986 350 Camaro and a regular 305 car. Is there a clue on the VIN or does it look you straight in the face when you open the hood?

If your wondering what I mean by a 1986 350 car I'm talking about one of the test mule 350 cars that have a rumored population of 50.

 

Pretty simple...

The "rare" 350 car doesn't exist. Therefore if anyone tells you that they have one, they're lying.

Of course any goob can stick a 350 into one; but that's quite a bit different from coming from the factory.

The "test mule" cars were destroyed, same as any other "test mules". Might have been employed for destructive tests like crash certification, would have been as close to "existence" as they ever got. Since they didn't have federal emissions certification, it would have been a SERIOUS and EXPENSIVE violation of the law for them to even "accidentally" find their way out into the wild. As far as the factory was concerned, they were just another prototype of something that didn't quite work out at that moment, nothing special at all.

So don't trouble yourself for even so much as a second that you might ever come across one. You won't.

 

 

That does hold weight. Kinda sad to think of how they were destroyed. What got me stirred up about the topic was that my cousin said something about the car he had being rare. I thought it might have been one of the 350 cars. Guess there is something else I have missed!

 

Why?

They're just chunks of metal; no soul, no personality, no life, just ... artifacts.

Everybody's car is "rare". And that makes EVERY ONE more "valuable" than all the other EQUALLY "rare" cars that are just like it. Just ask em. Truth of the matter is, VERY FEW cars are "rare"; and even among those, VERY FEW are "rare" in any way that anybody cares. Like, I bet a 6-cyl Camaro in baby poop green with a kaopectate brown interior and no A/C is "rare"; do you think anybody gives a crap? I doubt it. Think it's "valuable" because it's "rare"? yeah right.

 

Harsh but true sofakingdom.

 

That statement goes against the way I think about cars. What you said after that made plenty of sense. Let me quote a video game here:

"Every mangled mass of steel has a story to tell"

Guess we think differently about the way we see cars. I do like the idea of each individual car being rare. Each car off the assembly line had different features and that helps validate the statement. Out in the wild you could see two of the same car somewhere. 99% of the time they will be different. Also each vehicles will have a different history.

The idea of the individual car being rare is something interesting to think about.

 

Sounds like something that would come from a video game...

However, I live in REALITY. I don't find too much value in transferring nonsense from one fantasy genre to another. Life is too short for that. (even though reality is only for people too weak to handle drugs )

Anything that rolls off of a production line pretty much is, BY DEFINITION, not "rare".

I'm a mathematician at the core, renowned in real life for being able to put numbers to almost anything. I'm the guy who if you want to know the odds of something, or how many whatevers there are in a whatever, you ask ME. Where I work we build hospital equipment. Got asked once how many unique part #s we have. If you take our model numbering system, turns out we could build literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of what we build, with no 2 ever being the same. So what? same deal with cars.

Incidentally, I destroyed a short prototype run of my work product just today; it was a step in developing something, but had no future of its own. (of its own... very important concept) Same as those 50 86 model cars with 350s in them. They were built to test something, the data was gathered, they had no purpose beyond that. Curtains. Nothing to be sad about, happens to industrial products every day.

 

Now I get the way you see it. I like how you used the comparison with the hospital equipment. I'll be honest numbers were never really my thing. I'm kinda more of an artsy person so to say.

I always classified something rare when it comes to production #'s. Is there really any way to truly classify something rare with the production #'s in mind?

 

In relation to third gens, the only "rare" cars that also will carry value are the ones that carry a history like the R7U Players cars or the '88 1LE (4) or possibly even the B4C 350 cars that never saw service. They aren't extremely valuable, but may have a slightly higher value than the rest due to people's idea that they are "rare" which means they equate to "valuable". There are other "rare" cars in the third gen world, but they are all worth what someone will pay. The price is starting to go up on certain low mile models, but that's typical of any "performance" car reaching 30.

 

The thing about these cars is, they were born into the world at the wrong time, for "rare" to make any difference.

People always want to apply the marketplace trajectory of the classic 60s muscle cars to these cars. Problem is, NO car after about 1973, will EVER follow that pattern. It's not necessarily that the cars "aren't any good", or that "I don't like them", or any of that; rather, it's that the whole "car culture" reminiscence that generates all that "rare" "value", came crashing down in the Arab oil embargo in 1973. Overnight, current production cars ceased to create the same kind of excitement in the public's mind that there used to be. Kind of almost like when you start to date somebody and you're madly in lust with them, and then all the sudden, you discover that they're ... seriously flawed in some way. It NEVER goes back to being like it was.

By 1980, after only 11 years, the 69 Camaro was the most sought-after car in this hobby. By that logic, these cars should have reached that same pinnacle of "value" by around 2003 - 204 AT THE LATEST. Did that happen? No. Did it happen for 80s Mustangs? No. Vettes? No. Has it happened EVER for ANY kind of car newer than 1973? No. Will it EVER? No.

Or, consider the 57 Chevy; the very SYMBOL of the "classic car" culture. Do you realize, that car set the record for the highest single model production, and that record stood for most of a decade in spite of the overall car market nearly doubling during that interval? IOW, the LEAST "rare" car OF ALL, has turned out to be the MOST sought-after.

The "value" of these cars is simply the enjoyment that we, as owners, derive from them. They never have been, are not now, and never will be, "collector's items". It doesn't lead to wise decision making to pretend otherwise.

Me, I'm just not a very "romantic" person about things like that anyway, I pretty much keep my feet planted firmly on the ground in such matters. While Scott may be correct about some of the REALLY unusual specimens of these cars (I have no proof one way or the other so I won't agree or disagree with him on that), it has little or no bearing on one of these that's been in service as a driver for 30 years or whatever.

Very different from things like 57 Chevy or 69 Camaro; or the Mustangs, GTOs, various MOPARs, Chevelles, Novas, Vettes, and so forth, from the 60s.

 

Is there somewhere where I can dig up information on the R7U Players cars?

 

You do make the point about the oil crisis of the '70's. No doubt that would hurt future muscle cars values from then on. Also there is the fact that the introduction of OBD in cars for emissions regulations might have hurt the collectability in some way. Most people prefer when restoring a car prefer the simplicity of a pre emission car.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I did want to point out one example that has broken out of the "undesirable 80s" rut that you mention: The Grand National GNX. That car, by all accounts, is a highly desirable 80s car, and has demonstrated that from a desirability and value standpoint, it can stand side by side with the most valuable 69 Camaros.

 

What about the GMC Cyclone? That truck has a desirable performance aspect like the Grand National.

 

Kinda goes in line with people listing the "WS6" option as something noteworthy when trying to sell their Formula or GTA on which a simple suspension option was standard. But because of the marketing team at Pontiac in the late '90's people now think its a desirable or "rare" option that makes their car worth more.

If anybody wants to kill some time, go type in "rare" on ebay and look at all the crap that is far from it.

 

Generally nice ones are worth around what they sold for new... not unlike thirdgens. They have nowhere near the desirability (and price) of a GNX and are much more in line with a regular Grand National.

 

Didn't a '69 COPO Camaro go for around a million a few years ago? I love the GNX's, but I don't think any approach that amount.

 

As much as I like the Grand Nationals and the GNX, they are not in the category that sofakingdom mentioned. When the '69 Camaro was 30 years old, you could buy a pristine/restored example for about $22k. That's around 4.5x the original price. Based on that theory, the 1987 Grand National GNX, priced new at $30k, should be selling for $135k. They are only selling for about half that for one with miles and a little more than half for "new". The car has three years to be double it's current price to get in line with the coveted '69. The major difference is that the GNX was built as a limited production where the '69 Camaro was not.

So now compare a 30+ year old IROC-Z (not there yet), which is the most recognized third gen Camaro, to the most recognized 1st gen and the price gap is huge. The average $18k IROC-Z should carry an $81k price tag if it was following the same price strategy as the '69 at 4.5x the original price.

I agree that the thirdgens need to be enjoyed, however you decide to enjoy them, but thinking that you can retire by owning a specific model of one will lead to major disappointments and financial struggles during retirement.

 

GNX cars have been pulling 6 digits at auction lately. That's territory that only a few 60s muscle cars can get into. Yes, the COPO ZL1 Camaros are pulling more, but most Camaros don't. The GNX is worth more than the coveted 69 Z28. I'd say that especially for an 80s car, it qualifies it as desirable.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sofakingdom

Same as those 50 86 model cars with 350s in them. They were built to test something, the data was gathered, they had no purpose beyond that. Curtains. Nothing to be sad about, happens to industrial products every day.

The engineering prototypes, mules and development vehicles used for testing in almost all cases are nothing you'd want to own after the fact. They are truly rough drafts. Depending on their development level, things like fit and finish can be poor. They can be incomplete and/or cobbled together, full of mismatched components. They may not be fully functional. They can contain inferior, non production or even one off parts. They can be Frankensteins. They can look like Frankensteins and drive like monsters. They lead short, hard lives. Some are much better than others but none of them will meet the standard of a production level vehicle. Had those ‘86 5.7 liter Camaro test cars made it into the hands of the public they would have been a very poor representation of the Camaro model, diminishing the image. Beyond that, they could and would have posed legal liabilities for GM. If you had a choice between acquiring one of the ’86 test cars and an ’87 production example anyone could have purchased from a dealer you would want the ’87. Knowing what I know I’m confident of that.